About your Search

20130325
20130325
STATION
MSNBCW 8
CNNW 5
CSPAN 3
KNTV (NBC) 3
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 3
KTVU (FOX) 2
CSPAN2 1
KICU 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 32
Search Results 0 to 31 of about 32 (some duplicates have been removed)
a little bit. and doma and prop 8 those are the gay rights issues the supreme court is going to take up. >> the question of same-sex marriage, now before the supreme court. on tuesday and wednesday the justices hear oral arguments of two cases. major implications for same-sex couples. >> and then my face-to-face interview with president carter. >> wiping out a disease from the face of the earth, does that pop maybe everything else? >> i think in a personal way maybe it does because it affects so many people. >> i'll tell you about that, plus what is the one thing president carter wished he would have done when he was president. it's go time. [♪ theme music ♪] >> cenk: now the nra is used to running rough shot over our politics in this country, but all of a sudden they have a significant foe, his name is major bloomberg and he is about to spend $12 million in ads targeting republicans and democrats who are waivering on this issue. >> my dad taught me to hunt and i'll teach my kids. background checks have nothing to do with taking guns away from anyone. i want to prot
that they may create and raise in the best environment. >> reporter: the other case presents a challenge to doma, the defense of marriage act, passed by congress 17 years ago. it blocks federal recognition of same-sex couples in states where they are allowed to marry denying them 1,000 federal benefits that other married couples get. it's being challenged by 83-year-old edie windsor of new york when they are spouse died and left her the estate, she got a tax bill for $360,000. >> if the federal government recognized the marriage it would have been zero. >> reporter: president obama now says it is unconstitutional. >> the basic principle that america is founded on, the idea that we're all created equal, applies to everybody. regardless of sexual orientation. >> reporter: house republicans are now defending doma in court. >> the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. and our financing a lawsuit was to make sure that the proper forum was used to make sure we know what's constitutional and what isn't. >> reporter: the court hears the doma case on wednesda
, and then it will make on doma defining marriage as the marriage between a man and a women. a sign of the intense public interest over both cases with be seen outside of the court where lines started forming with people braving the cold as early as last thursday, the supreme court showdown comes as the political ground is shifting. an abc poll shows a record high 58% of americans now support same-sex marriage. today we saw mark warner come out in support of same-sex marriage and joins senator claire mcaskill who announced her support over the weekend. jay rockfeller spent "the war room" a statement saying quote . . . bravo senator. karl rove said that he could imagine a 2016 gop candidate in favor of gay marriage. wow. but will the supreme court's decision bring ground breaking change. joining me to discuss this is our political friend christine pelosi, chair of the california democratic party women's caucus, and she shares the party platform when they adopted marriage equality. what is at steak? >> most immediately at steak are the 18,000 same-sex couples which got married.
of marriage act - or doma - that legally defines marriage as between a man and woman. conservative leader rand paul says he believes in traditional marriage, but not doma. >> "i don't want the government promoting something i don't believe in, but i also don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue." >> reporter: although recent polls show a majority of americans support of same sex marriage, california's attorney general says it's more important to read the constitution. >> "i am absolutely against a ban on same-sex marriages because because they are simply unconstitutional." >> reporter: i'm cristina mutchler reporting for kron 4 news. >> a view from the golden gate. with rainfall, coming up. . [ female announcer ] safeway presents real big deals of the week. or how to get great prices on things you need for easter. we know you look around for the best deals, that's why we give you real big club card deals each week. right now a juicy smoked shank half ham is just 99 cents a pound. let's bake. safeway sugar is $1.97 for four pounds. and chobani greek yogurt is just a buck. r
's ridiculous. >> what the bill does -- >> reporter: now the defense of marriage act, also known by doma first passed by congress and signed by president clinton in 1996, is being challenged at the supreme court. >> it's being asked to decide whether as to whether or not congress can pass a law that treats same-sex couples who are already married under the laws of their state different from opposite sex couples. >> reporter: defenders of the law say congress has as much right as the states to make its own definition of marriage. >> doma is important because congress said it was important. i mean, we sent our elected representatives to washington, d.c., and they chose to say that marriage is one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. >> reporter: and conservatives say the founding fathers never contemplated gay marriage. >> because it's clearly not what anyone understood as marriage at the time of the framing of the constitution. >> reporter: still, same-sex families pay taxes and don't get the same benefit and the issue with doma really gets complicate federal they have children who ar
another law. doma, the defense of marriage act. it blocks federal recognition of same sex couples in states where they are allowed to marry, denying them about 1,000 federal benefits the other married couples get. when her spouse died and left her the estate, she got a bill from the irs for $363,000. >> i was heart sick. i lost the love of my life and i was heart sick. with this incredible expense. >> reporter: after president obama concluded the law is unconstitutional, house republicans entered the case to defend doma. >> thanks to pete williams who will join our coverage tomorrow and wednesday, if the high court strikes down doma, that would not automatically require states to permit same-sex marriage but the ruling could be a game changer for what all states are allowed to do. let's spin. jonathan capehart, friend of the show hark as piece out in the "washington post" today where he says, i don't think lgbt american fully appreciate how ten with us thing are on the court right now. he is very cautious. in factoring argues that the shift in social acceptance of gay marriage rec
windsor. she is challenging doma, the defense of marriage act. she said she was forced to pay taxes when her wife died. >> it was incredible expense. >> meanwhile, people who want to witness the cases firsthand began lining up outside the court on thursday. using tents, tarps, even umbrellas to shelter from today's snowfall. they're hoping to receive one of the roughly 60 seats available to the public. we learn one of those who will be inside the court is the lesbian couple of chief justice john roberts. jean podrasky will attend the hearings with her partner of four years. podrasky said this about her cousin. i believe he sees where the tide is going. i do trust him. i absolutely trust that he will go in a good direction. public opinion on same sex marriage has shifted dramatically. a recent poll shows 58% think it should be legal. that is up, 37% just a decade ago. justice correspondent pete williams is live in washington. a lot of details there but we know there are many options for the supreme court in a decision here in both these cases. >> right. let's start with prop 8. the court
and hundreds of years. doma is complicated because it does provide protection for the states from the federal government part of it federalizes the issue. there is a chance the court could strike down the federalization part of it. if they do i think the way to fix it is maybe to try to make all of the laws more neutral towards the issue. i don't want the government promoting something i don't believe in you but i don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue. i'm for a flat income tax and we wouldn't have marriage as part of the tax code. health insurance there is a way to write it where it would be neutral and you wouldn't bring marriage into the idea of health insurance chris i want to -- >> chris: i want to go back to the filibuster. after you filibustered for 13 hours you got this letter from the attorney general in which he wrote does the president have the authorization to kill an american with a drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil just is answer to that is no. it seems to me what attorney general holder is saying by implication is that the
- or doma - that legally defines marriage as between a man and woman. conservative leader rand paul says he believes in traditional marriage, but not doma. >> "i don't want the government promoting something i don't believe in, but i also don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue." >> reporter: although recent polls show a majority of americans support of same sex marriage, california's attorney general says it's more important to read the constitution. >> "i am absolutely against a ban on same-sex marriages because because they are simply unconstitutional." i'm cristina mutchler reporting for kron 4 news. >> secretary of state john kerry says he's made it clear to iraq that it shouldn't allow iran to use its airspace to ship weapons and fighters to syria. u-s officials believe shipments on iranian overflights are transporting weapons and fighters to the embattled syrian government. kerry says iraq's behavior in allowing use of the airspace raises questions about the country's reliability as a partner. >> a mall in los angeles is open again after more than a thousand wor
-- in the doma case, chris, because there the question is, if a state does decide to grant same-sex marriage, can the federal government refuse to recognize it, and there's a question here about whether the government has always or usually or normally deferred to the states to let them decide what marriage is. and lurking in both of them, it should be warned, is this question about whether the parties have legal standing to bring the cases. that's a much bigger issue in the doma case than it is in prop 8. >> i was going to say, pete, one of the most fascinating things i found in reading up about this is the standing question, do the people have the right to -- it's possible worry looking at this week as a massive moment and it's possible that the justices could rule no standing and maybe not. but let me play david boyce, the -- one of the lawyers in proposition 8 and arguing for and against repeal. let's play what they had to say over the weekend and come back and talk about it. >> every time the supreme court makes a constitutional decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights
of it. tea party conservative ron paul explained why he is against d.o.m.a. the defense of marriage act. >> it's a very complicated issue. i've always said the state has the right to decide. and i don't think the federal government should tell anybody how they should decide this. >> reporter: the supreme court will hear arguments about d.o.m.a. on wednesday. supreme court ruling are expected in june. >>> more details now on what the decision on prop eight could mean for california and the rest of the country. among the scenarios if the court strikes down prop-8 as a violation of constitutional rightings, same-sex marriage would become -- constitutional rights, same-sex marriage would become law. or they could decide states will decide. while those results are not clear cut, some legal experts think the lower court rulings would stand allowing same-sex couples to marry in california. >>> david stevenson will have live reports throughout the day. we will go in-depth on the case and gauge reaction from washington, d.c. to the bay area. >>> bay area postal workers fight to keep saturday d
incomparable in the house. the idea that it drove the adoption of doma -- >> it was an election year and a people do not have the political power to protect themselves. >> i want to ask whether, are there any intermediate positions between striking doma down entirely end up holding? i do not think so. >> you said that there are different cases. they are. statesstion is, do these have the authority to retain the traditional state of marriage? not that they have to. need a? it is the question on both. >> not asking you to yield their position. are there any interim positions in the case that the court could find between on the one hand doing what they suggested, to stay -- say the states have the full power to uphold or to change or do anything was same- sex marriages? and what the strongest view of the challengers is in prop. 8 our calls distinguishes unconstitutional. is a standing argument. >> it would be in a weird way. it would probably mean that there be marriage equality restored in california. >> why? quiet the judgments stays in effect. the that is clear at all. it is more tha
the constitutionality of doma and then after it lost in district court, it decided not to defend the constitutionality, but that a heightened standard of review was applicable, and under that heightened standard of review, it could not pass constitutional muster. when the district court does this in the case before the court now, the house of representatives known as the bipartisan legal advisor regroup entered the case to defend on behalf of the house, claiming that the law was unconstitutional, which meant that the -- that at least there would be an adversary present, which there would be in the court appeals case. in the court appeals by a vote of to do want to buy they struck down the line and the cases now before the court. when the court granted review, it did something quite interesting. although both the house and the solicitor general as well as the plaintiffs all believe there is jurisdiction, the court independently raise the jurors -- the question of whether there's jurisdiction or not ended appointed a harvard law professor to appear as amica as to argue that everybody involved is wrong a
a challenge to the defense of marriage act, or doma. that federal law defines marriage as being one man and one woman. edith windsor of new york is a plaintiff in the doma case. she fought back when she received an inheritance tax bill for $363,000 when her partner of 42 years died in 2009. here's what she told you in an earlier interview. >> new york state accepted my marriage as a marriage. and i believe and the justice department and the president agreed with me that the law doma is unconstitutional. doma is cruel. it discriminates against us for absolutely no value to the country. and we'd like to see that defeated all together. >> joe johns is in washington with more on what's ahead this week. morning, joe. >> morning. these are two of the most important cases of the year for the supreme court. the case involving edith windsor is actually the second case scheduled to be heard this week on wednesday. that challenge to the federal defense of marriage act. this is the law passed by congress and signed by the pld in 1996 that takes away benefits of marriage of same-sex couples on the f
this the best environment. >> reporter: the other case presents a challenge to doma, the defense of marriage act passed by congress 17 years ago. it blocks federal recognition of same-sex couples in states where they are allowed to marry, denying them about one thousand federal benefits that other married couples get. it's being challenged by 83-year-old edie windsor of new york when her spouse died and left her the estate, she got a tax bill for $363,000. >> if the federal government had recognized the marriage, it would have been zero. zero. >> reporter: after first supporting doma, president obama now says it's unconstitutional. >> basic principle that america is founded on. the idea that we're all created equal. applies to everybody. regardless of sexual orientation. >> reporter: house republicans are now defending doma in court. >> the administration doesn't get to decide what is constitutional. the supreme court does. and our phillipsing of the lawsuit was to make sure that the proper forum was used to make sure that we know what is constitutional and what isn't. >> that was nbc's pete wil
's prop 8. the other on the defense of marriage act, doma. will the supreme court follow public opinion? or will it stand and yell, stop? >>> in the 1970s the republican party began two decades in the wilderness when it swung too far to the left from where the country was at the time. now it's the republican party's turn. new polling suggests the gop is at its worst. the hard right is trying to keep itself in office and the party out of the white house, it seems. >>> remember last year how republicans were insisting all the calls were dead wrong right up until mitt romney actually lost? with those numbers? and even after that? well, they're at it again. now it's the polls on gay marriage that are wrong they say. all those polls are wrong. don't believe a word of them, they say. >>> finally, let me finish with people who were the cheerleaders, when their job was to be referee. the press. in the buildup to the iraq war. [ male announcer ] you are a business pro. omnipotent of opportunity. you know how to mix business... with business. and you...rent from national. because only national le
. she also believes the justices may come to a compromise, even portions of doma may be struck down. >> i think it will be appealing for conservatives on the court because it's a question of the federal government coming in to legislate in an area that has been traditionally reserved for the states making marriage law. i think it's a very conservative argument that will appeal to more conservative members of the court. then the liberal members of the court will be excited about being able to sort of affirm a commitment to progressive values like same-sex marriage. >> reporter: here's a breakdown of what may happen in the next few days. if the court strikes down prop 8 as a violation of constitutional rights same-sex marriage would become legal nationwide. or the cot can support prop 8, that means the state can decide whether or not to legalize same marriage. the supporters could be found to lack standing. some legal experts think the lower court rulings would stand if that were the case. >>> a berkeley couple will also attend the hearing. they've
married. d.o.m.a. about federal benefits when married. >> exactly. >> interrelated, but not the same issue. >> yes, because even if the supreme court says that prop 8 is struck down, that doesn't require any state to permit same-sex marriage. it will still be up to the states one way or the other. the only question in the doma case is whether the federal government will extend about 1,000 benefits, just like it would to opposite-sex couples, to gay couple who is get married. >> busy week, thank you. >>> the issue of same-sex marriage is among the most contentious facing the country. with both sides claiming they have moral and legal grounds to make their respective arguments. how the debate comes out could reshape how the country defines marriage for generations to come. >> every time the supreme court makes a constitutional decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights are too important to be left to the ballot box. we've done that with race, we've done that with women, we've done that with every discriminated class. >> it's difficult for americans and our public policy
act or doma on wednesday. one of the top attorneys arguing against prop 8 which bans sa same-sex marriage in the state predicted a win while speaking on "meet the press." >> every time the supreme court makes a decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights are too important to be left to the ballot box. we've done it with race, with women, with every discriminating class and, remember, when the united states supreme court outlawed the bans on interracial marriage in 1967, 64% of the american people opposed interracial marriage and yet when that decision came down, there wasn't a ripple. >> today more than 160 rallies are planned across the country in support of what advocates call marriage equality. a recent abc news/"washington post" poll shows most americans think same-sex marriage should be legal. a major shift from nine years ago when more people were against gay marriage than were for it. but the poll also shows a significant age divide. 70% of people under the age of 40 support same-sex marriage while more over the age of 6 abelieve it should be illeg
come to a compromise, even portions of doma may be struck down. >> i think it will be appealing for conservatives on the court because it's a question of the federal government coming in to legislate in an area that has been traditionally reserved for the states making marriage law. i think it's a very conservative argument that will appeal to more conservative members of the court. then the liberal members of the court will be excited about being able to sort of affirm a commitment to progressive values like same-sex marriage. >> reporter: here's a breakdown of what may happen in the next few days. if the court strikes down prop 8 as a violation of constitutional rights same-sex marriage would become legal nationwide. or the cot can support prop 8, that means the state can decide whether or not to legalize same marriage. the supporters could be found to lack standing. some legal experts think the lower court rulings would stand if that were the case. >>> a berkeley couple will also attend the hearing. they've been together for 13 years and raised four boys. they say they want t
and the federal defense of marriage act, or doma. coverage begins at 1:00 p.m. eastern, and you can hear the as soon asnts on -- the audio is released and these will be air at 8:00 p.m. eastern. on tuesday, a justice department official told a house judiciary subcommittee that the government is open to the idea of requiring warrants for obtaining electronic communications during criminal investigations but added that there are situations where the warrant should not be required. the hearing was looking at revisions for the 1986 electronic communications privacy act. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> subcommittee on crime, terrorism and homeland security will come to order. the chair recognizes himself for five minutes for the opening statement. the electronics privacy at this complicated and outdated, and largely unconstitutional. it made sense when it was drafted but the role of the internet and electronics communication in the daily lives is vastly different than it was during the reagan administration ended needed reforms to better protect privacy, to allow the growth of electronic c
not only on prop 8 tomorrow but doma on wednesday. but in the meantime the thoughts of those that have come from far to be a part of this, luckily the media doesn't have to wait in line, we get designated seats. but just to be a part of it, what's it like to be inside those hallowed halls? >> it's funny. you talk to as i have so many of these people whose cases have actually made their way to the supreme court. and that in and of itself is a lot like lightning strike. and then it begins usually very tense as the justices start interrupting the attorneys as they make their arguments. there's always from time to time in these a moment of levity where everybody realizes we're all human. but at the end of the day, yes, it's hugely important. everybody sort of gets caught up in the moment. and then you wait. and we'll certainly be waiting until june at least. >> i think, joe, some of these people standing in line waiting to be the first people to hear clarence thomas ask more than just a very small question, which i know we've already had. but that big first question for justice clarence thomas.
possible. i'm sorry. i think they're going to decide it on the prop 8 case on -- and doma on standing. on who has standing to bring. especially doma. they'll decide it on a narrow -- that somebody doesn't have standing to bring the case and same with prop 8. so it will overturn it. it will overturn prop 8 in california. i think that's gone. without a doubt. but i'm going to hold out the big optimistic, just let everybody get married decision. i don't hope -- i hope for that but i don't believe it will happen. >> stephanie: what makes me nervous is whin you have somebody like a -- is when you have -- i was just doing a hernia test on jim. you have somebody like ruth bader ginsburg, she's pro-choice but roe v. wade did it create a backlash. that's a little unnerving right? >> right. except that i think the nation's ready for that. i mean you know, especially young people. what is it? 80% of young people are people under 30 -- that's young people. i feel so old. >> stephanie: all right grandpa. >> get off my lawn! >> stephanie: drop the prunes for a minute. go ahead. >> that they support
will do. >> i think the case against doma is extraordinary. i cannot imagine the court not declaring it unconstitutional. in fact, i am so hopeful i think we might even get a 6-3 vote out of this. >> bill: wow. >> because in one since you could make the conservative case that the federal court was messing in state's business. from a conservativeview point, you could possibly vote against it. i think the prop 8 case is very much up in the air. it's interesting to me that the court took it on because it could have just let the lower court decision stand which would have declared it unconstitutional for california. why did they check it out? i don't think it's to overturn the lower court's decision and i don't think that we will see them proclaiming marriage equality nationwide. >> yeah. >> what i do think is is that they will overturn -- excuse me. they will affirm prop 8s unconstitutionality for california but they will be doing it as a way of signalling to the country that marriage equality for all is on its way. >> right. >> that will be a great statem
party coming up with a video changing the clinton view on doma and in the republican party, we're hearing from all across the spectrum that regardless of what the supreme court does the party needs to have a more libertarian view on this. republicans are telling us it would be a huge help with fund-raising especially in the big states of new york, california, and florida. if the republican party were to be more open on this. and people are telling us that investors don't want to invest what they think losing national elections which could continue to be the case if republicans stay very narrow on this issue. republicans i talked to even extremely conservative ones, very christian conservative republicans are telling me the polls they have seen in the last couple of weeks have been eye-opening, showing not only that young people very heavily in favor of gay marriage, but if you extrapolate that a little bit in just 10, 20 years, this is going to be 70/30 issue that republicans are going to be quickly going to be on the wrong side of. >> to your point, mike, looking at a graphic.
by the state's voters in 2008. justices will also consider the 1996 defense of marriage act or doma that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages. the central claim in both cases is that plaintiffs were denied equal protection of the law. later today a panel of attorneys who have been active in the debate and litigation will give a preview of what to expect by the high court. the event is hosted by george washington university law school, and you can see it live beginning at 4 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> tonight on "first ladies," called a bigamist and adulterer, rachel jackson dies of an apparent heart attack before andrew jackson takes office. his niece, emily donaldson, becomes the white house hostess but is later dismissed as fallout from a scandal. and during the next administration, angelica van buren is the white house hostess for her father-in-law, president martin van buren, who is a widower. of live tonight at 9 eastern on c-span and c-span3, also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> a hearing now by a house foreign affairs subcommittee on the threat of hezbollah,
, republicans came in though defend doma. the case comes in a different political climate than four years ago when prop 8 became law. an example, yesterday republican adviser karl rove said in the next election he could see pub one of the republican candidates favoring same-sex marriage. >> we will be covering a lot next week. thank you very much. >>> an apology from the irs over a training video that parodied star trek and paid for by taxpayer money. kelly o'donnell is in washington with more on that story. good morning to you. >> reporter: good morning. well, anytime your tax money is wasted, it's frustrating but especially so when it is the irs that's accused of poor judgment. a congressional committee found this star trek spoof didn't have any training value in it at all. to boldly go hollywood. ♪ the irs spent $60,000. >> captain log. >> reporter: making two videos including this elaborate "star trek" parody. >> sorry about the uniforms, the dry cleaner gave us the wrong order. >> how fast can you get out of here. >> reporter: and of course mr. spock. but they aren't actors. no they ar
Search Results 0 to 31 of about 32 (some duplicates have been removed)